McCain and Equal Pay?

[jsbrook]

[quote]orion wrote:
jsbrook wrote:
LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
Beowolf wrote:
LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
Mufasa wrote:
Its equal pay FOR EQUAL JOBS.

(That’s the debate. I just wanted to clarify).

Mufasa

Yes. So then logically I should be able to walk into a Target and pay the same price for the exact same product in Wal-Mart.

Equal pay for a PERFECTLY equal job. Ceteris Peribus. That means at the same company in the same place in the same building with the same boss with the same personality ect ect only difference being gender.

Happy?

There is no equality. Everyone is different and brings different values and productivity to their job. People should be free to compete for whatever wage they can get. The government has no business deciding who should get payed what for any reason. If you argue for equal pay for labor then you also must argue for equal pay for equal goods and services – otherwise your argument is inconsistent.

Prices and wages are the same exact thing. Not only that, the fallacy of equal pay would make you also argue in favor of equal stock-prices too. Coke and Pepsi both make colas so they should also have equal stock prices.

Please. Every individual brings unique aspects to the table. That doesn’t change the fact that women on average make roughly 70% of what men do in the same category of job within companies and across industries. Your analogy is totally innappropriate. You should be smart enough to realize why.

And wtf does that even mean?

Employees are not payed for what they bring to the table but for every job relevant thing they can contribute.

So, if women earn less because they get children, work less and don´t do the dangerous and dirty jobs they cannot make up for it by being able to recite Shakespeare.

Noone fucking cares or pays extra for it.

[/quote]

I will concede that having children does pose a problem. It’s something I’ve thought of myself. Because it is more difficult to rely on women to remain in the longterm. But while they are there, in the SAME job as a man, they don’t contribute 70% of what men contribute. They just don’t. Look into it. Not taking dangerous and dirty jobs is irrelevant. No one here is comparing plumbers and secretaries. We’re talking about women in the exact same field, in the exact same position making roughly 70% of what men in that field and position make. Male and female VPs in an automotive company Divison heads. Midlevel managment. Customer service representatives. The result is the same. Women in the same company in one of several slots for the same position tend to make signficantly less than men.

[orion]

[quote]jsbrook wrote:
orion wrote:
jsbrook wrote:
LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
Beowolf wrote:
LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
Mufasa wrote:
Its equal pay FOR EQUAL JOBS.

(That’s the debate. I just wanted to clarify).

Mufasa

Yes. So then logically I should be able to walk into a Target and pay the same price for the exact same product in Wal-Mart.

Equal pay for a PERFECTLY equal job. Ceteris Peribus. That means at the same company in the same place in the same building with the same boss with the same personality ect ect only difference being gender.

Happy?

There is no equality. Everyone is different and brings different values and productivity to their job. People should be free to compete for whatever wage they can get. The government has no business deciding who should get payed what for any reason. If you argue for equal pay for labor then you also must argue for equal pay for equal goods and services – otherwise your argument is inconsistent.

Prices and wages are the same exact thing. Not only that, the fallacy of equal pay would make you also argue in favor of equal stock-prices too. Coke and Pepsi both make colas so they should also have equal stock prices.

Please. Every individual brings unique aspects to the table. That doesn’t change the fact that women on average make roughly 70% of what men do in the same category of job within companies and across industries. Your analogy is totally innappropriate. You should be smart enough to realize why.

It appears that I also lack the intelligence to find the flaw in his argument.

Please enlighten me.

Coca Cola and Pepsi are different formulas. They taste different. The difference in stock price is a result in popularity fueled by this taste difference. As well as briliant advertising that has led people to prefer coke. There is no justification for women in the same position to be paid 30% less than men beyond corporate america’s broad policies to a degree that this group has no bargaining power. All evidence shows that women are not 70% as competent, do not relate to clients only 70% as well, and are not only 70% as dependable. The analogy is not apt because while there may be individual differences between women and men and among them. But they don’t come close to accounting for the broadscale difference in pay. By contrast, the difference in the stock price of coke and pepsi is fueled entirely by market factors. [/quote]

You seem to think that it is up to you to decide what is relevant criterion to base an economic choice on and what is not.

If businesses chose not to pay women as much as men for the exact same job and that has no basis in their performance why do other companies not simply hire those women?

Since most people do not get paid minimum wages, obviously competition between companies is alive and well. You may think that this mechanism may not be working in this case because of some systemic ideological blindness in the business community but that is an ideological assumption in and of itself.

However, if corporations are the soulless, profit maximizing entities we are told that they are, there is nothing to gain for them by paying women less unless there is an economic reason for it.

[orion]

[quote]jsbrook wrote:
orion wrote:
rainjack wrote:
Beowolf wrote:
LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
Mufasa wrote:
Its equal pay FOR EQUAL JOBS.

(That’s the debate. I just wanted to clarify).

Mufasa

Yes. So then logically I should be able to walk into a Target and pay the same price for the exact same product in Wal-Mart.

Equal pay for a PERFECTLY equal job. Ceteris Peribus. That means at the same company in the same place in the same building with the same boss with the same personality ect ect only difference being gender.

Happy?

Don’t encourage him. Now he’s going to go and start making up new meanings to words so that he will be right.

On this issue he is right and you are wrong.

Happy now?

Because yes, wages are prices.

Wages are not prices. Supply and demand affect prices in a way it does not affect wages when there is a near-universal inequitable wage practice in relation to a particular group. A company tries to raise prices too much, people will go to competitors or do without the product. But people won’t do without jobs. And there’s little bargaining power to force a wage increase for women when nearly all companies adopt the same practices.[/quote]

Again, that rests on the assumption that most companies have irrational hiring practices.

What stops other companies, founded and lead by women if that should be necessary, to exploit their competitors stupidity?

Plus, how high is unemployment in the US?

If you do not like your job, walk away.

[orion]

[quote]jsbrook wrote:
orion wrote:
jsbrook wrote:
LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
Beowolf wrote:
LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
Mufasa wrote:
Its equal pay FOR EQUAL JOBS.

(That’s the debate. I just wanted to clarify).

Mufasa

Yes. So then logically I should be able to walk into a Target and pay the same price for the exact same product in Wal-Mart.

Equal pay for a PERFECTLY equal job. Ceteris Peribus. That means at the same company in the same place in the same building with the same boss with the same personality ect ect only difference being gender.

Happy?

There is no equality. Everyone is different and brings different values and productivity to their job. People should be free to compete for whatever wage they can get. The government has no business deciding who should get payed what for any reason. If you argue for equal pay for labor then you also must argue for equal pay for equal goods and services – otherwise your argument is inconsistent.

Prices and wages are the same exact thing. Not only that, the fallacy of equal pay would make you also argue in favor of equal stock-prices too. Coke and Pepsi both make colas so they should also have equal stock prices.

Please. Every individual brings unique aspects to the table. That doesn’t change the fact that women on average make roughly 70% of what men do in the same category of job within companies and across industries. Your analogy is totally innappropriate. You should be smart enough to realize why.

And wtf does that even mean?

Employees are not payed for what they bring to the table but for every job relevant thing they can contribute.

So, if women earn less because they get children, work less and don´t do the dangerous and dirty jobs they cannot make up for it by being able to recite Shakespeare.

Noone fucking cares or pays extra for it.

I will concede that having children does pose a problem. It’s something I’ve thought of myself. Because it is more difficult to rely on women to remain in the longterm. But while they are there, in the SAME job as a man, they don’t contribute 70% of what men contribute. They just don’t. Look into it. Not taking dangerous and dirty jobs is irrelevant. No one here is comparing plumbers and secretaries. We’re talking about women in the exact same field, in the exact same position making roughly 70% of what men in that field and position make. Male and female VPs in an automotive company Divison heads. Midlevel managment. Customer service representatives. The result is the same. Women in the same company in one of several slots for the same position tend to make signficantly less than men.[/quote]

Again:

They do not hold the same job as men, because men already hold the EXACT same jobs. IF they are VP of big companies I trust them to make the decision that is right for them.

They might continue to work there because they have great working hours, medical insurance for their children, or a myriad of other things they value differently than men which makes a little less money sound like a good deal.

That is their decision. Let them decide.

[jsbrook]

[quote]rainjack wrote:
Mufasa wrote:
Okay, RJ:

My bad!

(Don’t trip me up on words, Brother! I’m not running for office!)

“Didn’t support Legislation”/ “Voted Against Legislation”…/…

(You get the point!)

Mufasa

I just wanted to make sure. Besides, I don’t need a bunch of left-wingers reading your post and taking off on some pointless tangent (as if this won’t get bulldogged into something about Iraq anyway).

In all honesty, there should not be a logical person on earth against equal pay for equal work. There had to be something in the wording, or in the details that gave McCain pause.

I don’t think women should be paid the same as men in jobs where they are nothing but EEOC babies such as firefighters.

I know I’m going to piss off a lot of bleeding hearts out there, but women are not as strong as men, and in jobs where strength is sometimes the difference between the life and death of an innocent person - I want the best qualified person on the job - regardless of which bathroom they frequent.

I know there are some strong women on this sight, and I am not talking about them. I think that if a woman wants equal pay - she should perform at the minimum standard that the men are required to.

No discounts for push ups, pull ups, and running unless the pay is downwardly adjusted right along with the standards.

But in the business world, there is no difference between males and females, so there need not be any difference in compensation.

Now let the gnashing and waling begin. [/quote]

I think this problem is better solved by having set minimum criteria for these jobs. And if this results in a small percentage of women in a class of jobs, so be it. There’s been a lot of lawsuits on this, and they’ve all lost. Smart move by the courts. They rightly say that minimum universal standards is not gender discrimination. A bunch of women sued the police force claiming that height, weight, and certain physical fitness requirements were discriminatory. They lost. I’m blanking on the case right now, but I’ll try to dig it. It was an appelate case at the least. It’s the organizations themselves that have adopted separate standards in some cases. Wrongly I think. A woman who can’t hack it as a firefighter under the same standards as men shouldn’t BE a firefighter. But if she does, she should get the same pay. With difference in pay then being measured by performance differences.

[jsbrook]

[quote]orion wrote:
jsbrook wrote:
orion wrote:
jsbrook wrote:
LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
Beowolf wrote:
LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
Mufasa wrote:
Its equal pay FOR EQUAL JOBS.

(That’s the debate. I just wanted to clarify).

Mufasa

Yes. So then logically I should be able to walk into a Target and pay the same price for the exact same product in Wal-Mart.

Equal pay for a PERFECTLY equal job. Ceteris Peribus. That means at the same company in the same place in the same building with the same boss with the same personality ect ect only difference being gender.

Happy?

There is no equality. Everyone is different and brings different values and productivity to their job. People should be free to compete for whatever wage they can get. The government has no business deciding who should get payed what for any reason. If you argue for equal pay for labor then you also must argue for equal pay for equal goods and services – otherwise your argument is inconsistent.

Prices and wages are the same exact thing. Not only that, the fallacy of equal pay would make you also argue in favor of equal stock-prices too. Coke and Pepsi both make colas so they should also have equal stock prices.

Please. Every individual brings unique aspects to the table. That doesn’t change the fact that women on average make roughly 70% of what men do in the same category of job within companies and across industries. Your analogy is totally innappropriate. You should be smart enough to realize why.

It appears that I also lack the intelligence to find the flaw in his argument.

Please enlighten me.

Coca Cola and Pepsi are different formulas. They taste different. The difference in stock price is a result in popularity fueled by this taste difference. As well as briliant advertising that has led people to prefer coke. There is no justification for women in the same position to be paid 30% less than men beyond corporate america’s broad policies to a degree that this group has no bargaining power. All evidence shows that women are not 70% as competent, do not relate to clients only 70% as well, and are not only 70% as dependable. The analogy is not apt because while there may be individual differences between women and men and among them. But they don’t come close to accounting for the broadscale difference in pay. By contrast, the difference in the stock price of coke and pepsi is fueled entirely by market factors.

You seem to think that it is up to you to decide what is relevant criterion to base an economic choice on and what is not.

If businesses chose not to pay women as much as men for the exact same job and that has no basis in their performance why do other companies not simply hire those women?

Since most people do not get paid minimum wages, obviously competition between companies is alive and well. You may think that this mechanism may not be working in this case because of some systemic ideological blindness in the business community but that is an ideological assumption in and of itself.

However, if corporations are the soulless, profit maximizing entities we are told that they are, there is nothing to gain for them by paying women less unless there is an economic reason for it.

[/quote]

It’s common sense. C’mon. They pay women less because they can. Because they all do. And because there are no other options. Women can’t choose to go to other corporations who pay more, depriving the stingy competitors of employees. Because very FEW such corporations exist. However, there are legal mechanisms in place to combat this already, and the wage discrepency has narrowed. So, from a legal standpoint, I question how much more can be done.

[jsbrook]

[quote]orion wrote:
jsbrook wrote:
orion wrote:
jsbrook wrote:
LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
Beowolf wrote:
LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
Mufasa wrote:
Its equal pay FOR EQUAL JOBS.

(That’s the debate. I just wanted to clarify).

Mufasa

Yes. So then logically I should be able to walk into a Target and pay the same price for the exact same product in Wal-Mart.

Equal pay for a PERFECTLY equal job. Ceteris Peribus. That means at the same company in the same place in the same building with the same boss with the same personality ect ect only difference being gender.

Happy?

There is no equality. Everyone is different and brings different values and productivity to their job. People should be free to compete for whatever wage they can get. The government has no business deciding who should get payed what for any reason. If you argue for equal pay for labor then you also must argue for equal pay for equal goods and services – otherwise your argument is inconsistent.

Prices and wages are the same exact thing. Not only that, the fallacy of equal pay would make you also argue in favor of equal stock-prices too. Coke and Pepsi both make colas so they should also have equal stock prices.

Please. Every individual brings unique aspects to the table. That doesn’t change the fact that women on average make roughly 70% of what men do in the same category of job within companies and across industries. Your analogy is totally innappropriate. You should be smart enough to realize why.

And wtf does that even mean?

Employees are not payed for what they bring to the table but for every job relevant thing they can contribute.

So, if women earn less because they get children, work less and don´t do the dangerous and dirty jobs they cannot make up for it by being able to recite Shakespeare.

Noone fucking cares or pays extra for it.

I will concede that having children does pose a problem. It’s something I’ve thought of myself. Because it is more difficult to rely on women to remain in the longterm. But while they are there, in the SAME job as a man, they don’t contribute 70% of what men contribute. They just don’t. Look into it. Not taking dangerous and dirty jobs is irrelevant. No one here is comparing plumbers and secretaries. We’re talking about women in the exact same field, in the exact same position making roughly 70% of what men in that field and position make. Male and female VPs in an automotive company Divison heads. Midlevel managment. Customer service representatives. The result is the same. Women in the same company in one of several slots for the same position tend to make signficantly less than men.

Again:

They do not hold the same job as men, because men already hold the EXACT same jobs. IF they are VP of big companies I trust them to make the decision that is right for them.

They might continue to work there because they have great working hours, medical insurance for their children, or a myriad of other things they value differently than men which makes a little less money sound like a good deal.

That is their decision. Let them decide.

[/quote]

Yes, you’re right. Black in the 1950s should’ve been allowed to decide to work too. Oh, wait. What aren’t you getting here? If there was true choice for most female workers to decide between, that’d be one thing. But it’s not. The problem is universal such that true options often don’t really exist.

[orion]

[quote]jsbrook wrote:
orion wrote:
jsbrook wrote:
orion wrote:
jsbrook wrote:
LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
Beowolf wrote:
LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
Mufasa wrote:
Its equal pay FOR EQUAL JOBS.

(That’s the debate. I just wanted to clarify).

Mufasa

Yes. So then logically I should be able to walk into a Target and pay the same price for the exact same product in Wal-Mart.

Equal pay for a PERFECTLY equal job. Ceteris Peribus. That means at the same company in the same place in the same building with the same boss with the same personality ect ect only difference being gender.

Happy?

There is no equality. Everyone is different and brings different values and productivity to their job. People should be free to compete for whatever wage they can get. The government has no business deciding who should get payed what for any reason. If you argue for equal pay for labor then you also must argue for equal pay for equal goods and services – otherwise your argument is inconsistent.

Prices and wages are the same exact thing. Not only that, the fallacy of equal pay would make you also argue in favor of equal stock-prices too. Coke and Pepsi both make colas so they should also have equal stock prices.

Please. Every individual brings unique aspects to the table. That doesn’t change the fact that women on average make roughly 70% of what men do in the same category of job within companies and across industries. Your analogy is totally innappropriate. You should be smart enough to realize why.

And wtf does that even mean?

Employees are not payed for what they bring to the table but for every job relevant thing they can contribute.

So, if women earn less because they get children, work less and don´t do the dangerous and dirty jobs they cannot make up for it by being able to recite Shakespeare.

Noone fucking cares or pays extra for it.

I will concede that having children does pose a problem. It’s something I’ve thought of myself. Because it is more difficult to rely on women to remain in the longterm. But while they are there, in the SAME job as a man, they don’t contribute 70% of what men contribute. They just don’t. Look into it. Not taking dangerous and dirty jobs is irrelevant. No one here is comparing plumbers and secretaries. We’re talking about women in the exact same field, in the exact same position making roughly 70% of what men in that field and position make. Male and female VPs in an automotive company Divison heads. Midlevel managment. Customer service representatives. The result is the same. Women in the same company in one of several slots for the same position tend to make signficantly less than men.

Again:

They do not hold the same job as men, because men already hold the EXACT same jobs. IF they are VP of big companies I trust them to make the decision that is right for them.

They might continue to work there because they have great working hours, medical insurance for their children, or a myriad of other things they value differently than men which makes a little less money sound like a good deal.

That is their decision. Let them decide.

Yes, you’re right. Black in the 1950s should’ve been allowed to decide to work too. Oh, wait. What aren’t you getting here? If there was true choice for most female workers to decide between, that’d be one thing. But it’s not. The problem is universal such that true options often don’t really exist. [/quote]

Or there is no universal problem at all and the wage discrepancy is completely justified.

Force businesses they pay women more anyway and women won´t be able to find jobs.

[Mufasa]

Back to the original question:

We can probably all agree that if Senator McCain did vote against such Legislation, its because of all the confusion and endless litigation that Lawyers would cause, using some of the same “arguments” that are on this thread.

It’s amazing to me how something that surely was meant to correct some obvious inequalities can be subverted to meet and serve peoples own selfish means.

Amazing.

Mufasa

[orion]

[quote]jsbrook wrote:
orion wrote:

It’s common sense. C’mon. They pay women less because they can. Because they all do.[/quote]

Yes, let´s use common sense.

Why does that not work in the case of steel worker, lumberjacks and CEO´s but only in the case of people who have a uterus?

Why is there no smart and greedy entrepreneur making millions of dollars just by hiring women and paying them just a tad more?

[orion]

[quote]Mufasa wrote:
Back to the original question:

We can probably all agree that if Senator McCain did vote against such Legislation, its because of all the confusion and endless litigation that Lawyers would cause, using some of the same “arguments” that are on this thread.

It’s amazing to me how something that surely was meant to correct some obvious inequalities can be subverted to meet and serve peoples own selfish means.

Amazing.

Mufasa [/quote]

That is not amazing at all.

People just pursue their goals using the language of their day.

There is no fundamental difference between plundering the natives for the higher glory of God or to avoid competition by using environmental protection laws.

[LIFTICVSMAXIMVS]

[quote]jsbrook wrote:
Wages are not prices. Supply and demand affect prices in a way it does not affect wages when there is a near-universal inequitable wage practice in relation to a particular group.[/quote]

Wages are indeed prices. Wages are the price paid for labor. Supply and demand affect wages just like they do anything else. There is no special laws of economics governing wages separate from prices.

If women get paid less for the exact same job it is because they are valued less for what they do. This can in part be explained by the law of marginal utility: Each new unit of a good (in this case an employee) is valued less than the previous one.

Just because I do the same job as someone standing next to me on a factory floor does not mean we have the same job or bring the same value to the company. Every position is valued individually.

Women are typically valued less because they have uterus.

[rainjack]

[quote]orion wrote:
Aragorn wrote:
Give up beowolf. This is definitely one of the most loopy, pathetic arguments I’ve ever heard.

There is very little that annoys me so much as a condescending an demeaning attitude towards an argument or poster, that just clearly shows the complete lack of understanding on the part of the poster who makes it.
[/quote]

On this particular subject - both you and lifty deserve a=every bit of condescension that comes your way.

You little buddy even admitted to not knowing what the hell we were even talking about - and that he didn’t really care.

So - do you make it a habit to defend the self-admitted idiots? Or is it only when you are stoned off your ass?

BTW - please show me where I ever said wages were not prices.

Short of that, why don’t you go catch that frog - I am sure you could do with another hit.